Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 1981
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
AMIT RAWAL, C.S. Sudha, JJ
BIJU – Appellant
Versus
SOUMYA T.P. – Respondent
Mat.Appeal 834/2023
P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM), K.SUDHINKUMAR, SABU PULLAN, GOKUL D. SUDHAKARAN, R.BHASKARA KRISHNAN, BHARATH MOHAN
Entitlement to property and maintenance must be established through clear evidence, including admissions of parties in family law disputes.
Headnote:
Family Law - Marriage and Maintenance - Family Court Act, Section 25 & 26 - The court interpreted provisions related to property rights and maintenance of spouses, emphasizing entitlements based on evidence of contributions and admissions made during proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
Parties married in 2002; disputes arose over gold ornaments, maintenance, and a counterclaim for defamation. The wife claimed return of 60 sovereigns of gold and maintenance, while the husband admitted to receiving gold but contested the amount.
Issues: Entitlement to recovery of gold ornaments, price for home appliances, maintenance amount, and validity of husband's counterclaim for defamation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the husband's admission of gold receipt as critical evidence, which established the wife's entitlement to recoverments over the counterclaim raised by the husband, supported by the lack of proof of repayment.
Final Decision: Appeal dismissed, upholding the Family Court's decision.
JUDGMENT
Amit Rawal, J.
For the reason stated in the affidavit accompanying C.M.Appln.No.1/2023, filing delay of 24 days is condoned.
1. Present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 03.08.2023 rendered in O.P.No.215/2014 of Family Court, Kollam, which was assigned on transfer the new number O.P.(Others)No.47/2023.
2. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 24.05.2002 in accordance with Hindu customary rites and ceremonies. As per the allegations in the petition on behalf of the respondent/wife, she was given 80 sovereigns by her parents and also valuable utensils and home appliances plus Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) in cash. Within the one week of marriage appellant husband had taken 60 sovereigns of gold and sold for the purpose of buying a property in his name but the said property was never purchased. On 10.04.2007, appellant/husband filed a petition for divorce before the Family Court. It was settled and as part of the settlement, the wife started residing with the husband. During that time respondent No.2/the child was born. When the husband gone to Gulf for job respondent/wife returned home. But, thereafter, the relationship between the parties became bitter. On 02.12.2011 respondent/wife filed M.C.No.150/2011 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class for maintenance and return of gold ornaments. Husband instituted a petition for divorce as O.P.No.280/2012 and another O.P(G&W)No.307/2012 for custody of the child.
3. Appellant appeared and filed objection, admitted the marriage, marriage has been dissolved as per the decree in O.P.No.280/2012 and thereafter, had married another lady. It was alleged that the respondent/wife was suffering from Schizophrenia and had a suicidal tendency. She left the matrimonial home as way back as on 08.04.2005. Receipt of 60 sovereigns of gold ornaments was admitted and it was mentioned that some gold ornaments for Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) were sold and out of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was given to the appellant/husband by the respondent/wife as loan. The balance gold ornaments were in the custody of the wife. Compromise arrived at in O.P.(HMA) No.179/2007 was admitted and alleged that on 28.07.2007 a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was returned to the respondent/wife in cash. When the wife visited Dubai husband gave her 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments. Besides that the husband also set up a counter claim and claimed a compensation of Rs.22,70,000/- (Rupees twenty two lakhs seventy thousand only) on account of the fact that the respondent/wife had made certain defamatory statements.
4. Since the parties were at variance the learned Family court framed the following points for determination:
1. Whether the first petitioner is entitled to recover 60 sovereigns of gold ornaments or its price from the respondents ?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to recover amount of Rs.50,000/- as the price for the home appliances ?
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to maintenance from the first respondent and if so what is the quantum?
4. Whether the respondents are entitled to recover Rs.22,70,000/- as counter claim from the petitioners?
5. What is the order to be passed?
5. Respondent/wife examined herself as PW1 and brought on record Exts.A1 to A5 ie., copy of the marriage certificate, photographs, letters sent by the appellant/husband to her dated 07.09.2004, 04.07.2004 and 28.03.2003. On the other hand, husband examined himself as RW1 and brought on record Exts.B1 to B16 ie., letters sent by the respondent/wife dated 30.05.2005, 23.05.2004, 29.10.2005 and 19.04.2004, statement and copy of the statement of the wife, copy of judgment of OP(HMA)286/2012 Family Court, Kollam, Copy of petition MC.250/2011 of Judicial First Class Magistrate of Paravur, Copy of compromise petition in MC.150/2011 of Judicial First Class Magistrate of Paravur, Copy of order in MC.250/2011 of Judicial First Class
